On Point blog, page 1 of 61
COA affirms TPR order over erroneous exercise challenge
State v. E.L., 2026AP1497, 9/9/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Emily” appeals the circuit court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child, “Gretchen,” arguing that the court erroneously exercise of discretion when it found that termination was in Gretchen’s best interests. Emily claims the court failed to consider whether Gretchen had substantial relationships with other family members, and whether it would be harmful to her if those relationships were severed. COA affirms.
COA holds that termination of parental rights automatically terminates the parent’s obligation to pay child support, and the parent is entitled to be reimbursed for overpayments.
Rhiannon M. Stroede v. Jason R. Royal, 2025AP2654, 9/3/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA held that an order terminating a parent’s rights to a child automatically terminates the parent’s obligation to pay child support and the parent is entitled to be reimbursed for any overpayments.
COA rejects challenge to exercise of discretion at TPR disposition hearing
State v. Y.M., 2026AP1212, 8/27/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Yolanda” challenges the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at disposition, arguing that the evidence lacked “complete and meaningful testimony” from the children’s foster placements and potential adoptive parents. COA rejects these arguments and affirms.
COA: Circuit court does not lose competency in TPR proceeding when it fails to comply with statutory requirement to hear testimony to support grounds for termination before accepting plea.
Barron County v. K.L.P., 2026AP460 & 2026AP461, 7/21/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that the circuit court did not lose competency to enter disposition orders in an action to terminate parental rights if it accepts a no-contest plea to the grounds for termination without hearing testimony, even if Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3) requires testimony.
Defense win: COA reverses summary judgment on continuing denial of visitation ground and orders summary judgment for parents on same ground
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. J.L.C. and M.M.C., 2026AP498 and 647, 6/25/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
JLC and MMC each appeal the circuit court order terminating their parental rights to their child, CMC, arguing that the court erred in granting Waupaca County’s motion for summary judgment on grounds. COA concludes that the ground on which SJ was granted, continuing denial of visitation, requires the county to prove that the parents received adequate notice of the conditions of resuming visitation, and the county cannot make this showing under the facts. Therefore, COA reverses the order and remands with directions that the circuit court grant partial summary judgment to both parents on the continuing denial of visitation ground.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
Defense win: COA reverses TPR dispositional order
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.J.T., 2026AP794, 6/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
CJT appeals the circuit court order terminating his parental rights to his son, JJT, arguing that the court failed to demonstrate that it considered all of the required factors at disposition. Despite the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA agrees, reversing the termination order and remanding for a proper exercise of discretion.
COA affirms TPR orders over sufficiency challenges
State v. M.G., 2025AP2883-2888, 5/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
M.G. appeals orders terminating her parental rights to her six children on the basis that the circuit court erred when it found that the state had proven by clear and convincing evidence that child protective services made reasonable efforts and she failed to assume parental responsibility for the three youngest children. COA affirms.
COA addresses multi-pronged attack on TPR orders and affirms
State v. J.G., III, 2025AP469-474, 5/15/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although J.G. levies a number of appellate attacks, COA finds his arguments uniformly unavailing and affirms.
COA finds evidence supports TPR dispositional order and affirms
Marquette Department of Human Services v. B.L.J., 2026AP400-402, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another decision applying the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA rejects the appellant’s arguments which ignore that standard of review.